Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Quickly

It's been busy around here and I haven't had much time to post. Two very quick thoughts in convenient bullet form:

I love the movie Chinatown as much as anybody, and I certainly understand that having your pregnant wife murdered by the Manson Family would be enough to drive anyone crackers. Still, I don't get why Roman Polanski should get a free pass for what he did in 1978. You can find the details elsewhere but let's put it this way: would you want your 13-year-old daughter to go through what Polanski's victim went through?

I understand that having the Olympics in Chicago in 2016 would be a Very. Big. Thing. I also understand why the President would want to go to Copenhagen if he thought his presence would seal the deal. Still, it seems to me he has more pressing matters on his agenda. I would hope that the IOC would understand.

Also, I am on record saying that I don't think opposition to Obama is race based. But I am wondering why Obama's efforts on behalf of his hometown would elicit suggestions that this would bring about new Olympic events like: GangBangin as an Olymipic sport... who can sign up the most pimps and crack hos for bidness subsidies... grand theft auto...your words, not mine. But I am certain it will have nothing to do with race.

Yes, the disconnect is that sane Americans (not the blind sheeple of the ObamaNation) don't consider effective stimulus as something far off as 2016 for just one city.

Now, Rich, if you think this Obama malaise will last for 10 more years then I can see your point.

Maybe you could write up a plan for a nice winter celibration in Warroad for Feb 2024 to help the northern Minnesota economy that currently has an unemployment rate of almost 20%? Sure that ought to help!

Well, considering my link is about Iranian missiles, I'd say there is a disconnect, but it's not on my part, good sir.

As for the second point -- K-Rod can speak for himself on that (and will). We could limit any prospective competitions to Sauganash or Elmhurst if you'd like. And my suggestion for a Chicago related Olympic event would be the Alderman pinky-ring toss. Or beanbag, as in what politics ain't.

Amanda, it is 2009, what would that have to do with the 2016 Olympics?

...

Racist comment? Against which race, the human race?

Gangbangin' is not specific to a particular race, it is prevalent in parts of Chicago. I knew a gangbanger from L.A. back around 1980ish. He served the gang, not a race. He had to do a drive by to get initiated.

Signing up the pimps and crack hos for govmint subsidies is equal opportunity as well. Did you see the ones in Baltimore that ACORN tried to "help"? Racist you cry? Seriously?

And as for grand theft auto, did you see that racist Nick Cage in Gone in 60 Seconds?

Sure, there are fine parts of Chicago and some not so nice parts of Chicago. Chicago is one of the most crime/violence/corrupt cities in America. *cue Elvis... On a cold and gray Chicago Morn... another little baby child is born...*

Open question to both Rich and Amanda: Could you further explain the racist accusation to the readers and show your true colors?

To make an accusation of racism based on K-Rod's comment is weak broth. Rich and Amanda have assumed racism into what he said. I don't blame them too much for this. It's a knee-jerk reaction these days. It's pernicious. Nevertheless, it is wrong.

All people form assumptions about others based on race. It's human nature. (The difference - what we must all strive for - is to not discriminate against people due to our superficial, unproven assumptions.) As to K-Rod's comment, I didn't think "K-Rod's a racist!" But I thought the comment itself was racially insensitive. There are people in my own family who say "un-PC" things that could construed as hateful against other races, and I know that's not their intention. But it's destructive nonetheless, and in some ways more dangerous, because it's subtle, and therefore supposedly harmless.

Anyway, with my previous comment, I merely meant to echo what Rich said to begin with - why would Obama/Chicago 2016 would immediately give rise to jokes about gang bangin'?

For MY part, I'm not saying don't be irreverent, or jocular, or cynical. I just think it's worthwhile to think about what events we would have joked about if Bush were supporting Austin for the 2008 Olympics, or if Clinton were supporting Little Rock for the 2000 Olympics.

As to the Olympics/economy - "this year," because they are working to secure the gig this year. Securing investment for the future and whatnot.

Regarding the economic impact that securing the Olympics for Chicago would have: There are over 20 infrastructure projects that are already past the design stage, that would be in implementation by next summer, and many more to follow over the next six years. Do you honestly think that these projects would be started in 2016? Please think a little before making such silly assumptions.

BTW, most of the building trades in Chicago currently have 9 to 15 month waiting lists on their book. If you are a tradesman and get laid off, that means that you are looking at a 9 to 15 month layoff. Most of my friends are tradesmen and at least half are OOW, and have been so for multiple months. Getting the Olympics in Chicago ensures that time on the book will be reduced dramatically for virtually all of these folks.

As for Obama throwing his hat in the ring on this, why wouldn't he? If he didn't, he would be the only head of state among the 4 contenders who did not. And if we didn't get the games, every conservative in the country would be blaming the President for not getting involved. Admit it, you're just being partisan on this one.

As for Obama throwing his hat in the ring on this, why wouldn't he? If he didn't, he would be the only head of state among the 4 contenders who did not.

True and irrelevant. He's up to his ass in alligators right now. I personally think he has more important things to do, and that's what I said. But it's not that big a deal to me one way or another.

And if we didn't get the games, every conservative in the country would be blaming the President for not getting involved.

If you think that, you don't understand conservatives nearly as well as you think you do. the conservatives I know are, at best, lukewarm about the Olympics.

Admit it, you're just being partisan on this one.

Gasp! Anything but that! :)

Look, I understand the realities of this. Having the Olympics would cause a boom in construction in Chicago. That's a good thing. It would be a temporary feather in the cap of the city. That's not a bad thing, either. The post-Olympics experience for cities is decidedly a mixed bag, though -- okay in Atlanta and Salt Lake, still a sucking chest wound in Montreal 33 years on.

I honestly don't care if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I still stand firm in my view that Obama has more pressing matters. But he's going to do what he's going to do. So am I. What a great country!

They all are up to their ass in alligators, all the time, Rich. Which is why presidents shouldn't be involved. Obama's getting involved is less about him than about the self-importance of the IOC. Screw 'em.

K-Rod,I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. Dude, you are all over the map. However, you did say:

"Yes, the disconnect is that sane Americans (not the blind sheeple of the ObamaNation) don't consider effective stimulus as something far off as 2016 for just one city."

Once again, I must not be bright enough to devine the true meaning of your comment.

BTW, have you ever considered the irony in a statement wherein, you take people to task for being abject followers of Obamas' by being the 20 millionth person to call them the "blind sheeple of the ObamaNation?"

Now, if you can show me one example of a time when I said dissent was unpatriotic, I will happily buy you lunch. And if you think I am never critical of Obama or the left, then you either have not been reading this blog for very, or you have trouble with comprehension.

K-Rod, as previously noted, I don't know what you are talking about most of the time (which I am starting to think is a really good thing). You keep going on and on about dissent and patriotism, without attaching your statements to anything. I am not even sure where this dissent/patriotism theme came from. Can you please point to one single concrete thing that anyone but you said, in this entire thread, about patriotism and dissent. Please?

As for my providing criticism about Obama, it is out there. Do your freaking homework. Furthermore, last time I checked, you weren't my boss, and it wasn't my job to provide you with your talking points. (Which is another thing to add to my gratitude list, because I have worked for people who can't think logically, and it is never fun).

Rich, I will agree with you that you are truly clueless and not just faking ignorance.

Your claim that you view Obama with skepticism and criticism has NO foundation. Anyone can see that a mile away. You, sir, have been busted.

Mr. D and I have made several concrete points in this thread while you and Amanda have done little more than cry racism. I am familiar with and can spot those Liberal Fascist tactics.

BTW, I don't blame you for having BHO voter remorse. You certainly did pick a lemon.

A 10% unemployment rate and Obama is fiddling over in europe. He didn't even give General McChrystal a half hour of his time. Heck of a job, Bimmy. Well, at least he isn't spending all his time pushing ObamaNationCare down our throats.

Rich has been critical of Obama on this site. He's been posting comments here for nearly 2 years and he's questioned administration policies several times. He's obviously considerably more sympathetic to the President than we are, but he's not nearly as egregious an apologist for the administration as many people on his side of the aisle can be.

K-Rod, The French poet Apollinaire once said that there is no greater pleasure in life than the enmity of fiends. I couldn't agree more, so thank you for the insults.

But do yourself a favor, and don't try to cast yourself with Mr. D. HE makes concrete points, trenchant observations and witty asides. You spew drivel that was fed to you on some talk show. There is a big difference that I am pretty certain is not clear to you. But bottom line: I know Mr. D, and you, sir, are no Mr. D.

Did Obama waste his time on the IOC? Yes. But I would think that was evident from the results. But you do seem to have trouble with what is evident, so I will explain: Chicago made a bid to host the 2016 Olympics. It wasn't picked as the host city, so that means it was a losing bid. Therefore, any effort that was spent on that losing effort was a waste of time. Is there anything else really simple that tou would liek me to explain?